Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Yes. The assets are in place at birth. That's the definition of a prodigy. Obviously the assets must be deployed at some point (i.e. exposure to a piano, lessons, positive reinforcement from parents, etc.), but once deployed, the gift will quickly become apparent and the child will progress far more rapidly than a normal child.

So, bearing this in mind, one would still be a prodigy even if their assets were never deployed? (If so, you might be swaying me to your side. I'd still want to figure out how we identify these prodigies, considering their output in the latter case would be less than prodigious. )

Quote:

Don't know about the Higgs project. This all happened in 1992. All I know is that UC told him that only grad students were allowed to go to CERN (a UC rule, not a CERN rule), but they wanted to make an exception in his case, and asked him if he was interested. Apparently he had uncovered various programming errors in some of the software written by his physicist professors. They were so grateful for rescuing their calculations that they wanted him doing the same thing at CERN. So I don't think they recruited him to work on the Higgs boson. They wanted his programming skills, so that they could focus on Higgs. Regardless, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience that he never regretted accepting. (Plus, it helped him decide that he really didn't want a career in physics!)

Ah, then in that case, he certainly beat my cousin (2002). That's a really neat opportunity, and kudos to your son for finding the errors. If only he had been working on NASA's Mars Rover project a few years back... My cousin had the exact opposite experience -- went there for physics, and solidified his desire for that career. I really wish I could have gotten a chance to visit when he was there.. I think it would have been a really neat trip.

Quote:

Aha! I didn't need to provide any personal example of my own, because you yourself are an example! "I didn't study longer than an hour for any exam I ever took, college physics finals included." Can't you see that you too are "gifted"? Most of us struggle with these subjects, and for many, it wouldn't matter if we studied for hours, days, weeks, or months. We might improve, but we will never be a physicist, a mathematician, etc., no matter how hard we work at it. It's not in our DNA.

I think the problem, Derulux, is that those who have a gift, whether in science, math, or music, have no idea they have a gift. It comes as naturally to them as walking, talking, or even breathing, so they don't see themselves as special, and figure it's all because they "worked so hard" at it. By your own admission you excelled at math and science without breaking a sweat.

At least now I think I better understand why you struggle with this concept of innate, natural born ability. Because of the relative ease with which you absorb math and science, you've wrongly attributed your facility to "hard work, ambition, etc.", and you're extrapolating that anyone could do the same.

Yeah, I definitely don't consider myself all that special. I never found something I couldn't do, but I did find quite a few things I didn't want to put in the effort to achieve. So, when I see someone who is successful at a particular endeavor, I just see someone who put in the time to get there. And I do believe that if the information is presented in a way that one learns, then anyone can learn that information.

I think we've come far enough in piano pedagogy to be able to identify specifically what is happening at the keys to produce a certain technical feat and/or a certain sound. The first guys to do it had to do it based on their own intuition, but we can now teach it -- and I think that opens a lot of doors that may not have been open, say, before Liszt. So, in many respects, I think it "lowers the bar" so more people can accomplish those feats, but perhaps you are correct in saying there is still a bar and there are still people below that bar.

I wonder, then, what causes this bar to exist, and is there a way around it? In other words, is there a way to teach those below that bar to do what those above the bar can do? After all, there are people with severe disabilities who prove extremely able in certain areas.

Quote:

But you'd be flat out wrong. We are not all born "Etch-A-Sketches", waiting to be scribbled on. A few lucky ones are actually born i-Pads!

A very nice reference. I think someone tried to make a reference earlier using pianos, but I'm not sure it worked as well as this. Still, I've seen some pretty amazing things done on an Etch-A-Sketch..

Incidentally, this reminds me of one of my favorite snippets of dialogue from "I, Robot".

Spooner: ...you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece? Sonny: Can you?

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

I wonder, then, what causes this bar to exist, and is there a way around it? In other words, is there a way to teach those below that bar to do what those above the bar can do? After all, there are people with severe disabilities who prove extremely able in certain areas.

Sorry to continually resurrect this thread, but I imagine anyone reading it now is equally interested in this topic, or quite bored and has nothing better to do. I've been thinking a lot about this part of a conversation with Old Man, trying to relate it to something with which I'm familiar and have observed regularly. I came up with a classroom analogy.

When children go through the education system, they learn compounded information over time. Addition and subtraction lead to multiplication and division. Fractions. Decimals. Eventually algebra, trig, calculus, etc. When these children start on day one, they understand they will be given a grade A-F, and as long as they get a D, which is usually 65 and above, they can pass and move on to the next grade.

Unfortunately, what I see happening is this: a kid earns a B in 1st grade math, meaning he/she understands approximately 85% of the material. Then, they move on to 5th grade and get a C, or 75%. Then, they get to algebra, and because their foundation is rocky on only 75% understanding of previous material, they get a D, or 68%. Still good enough to pass, but they now understand only about 2/3 of the material. They move on to high school and take geometry or trig, and there they fail. Everyone looks at this kid and says, "Well, they weren't good at math."

I don't see it that way. I see a failure in 1st grade with that B, which compounded over time to create an unwinnable scenario. Look at it like this: you're trying to sail on course 270, but you're actually sailing on course 265. Without a course correction, you're in for a disaster. A few hundred yards through the water, and you're not that far off course. But a few days later, you're miles off course. And when you've traversed an entire ocean, you might hit a different continent.

So perhaps what everyone sees as "talent" is, to me, simply starting on the right course. But then there's the question of ship used-- if someone has a speed boat, they'll get there faster than a three-masted barque. Well, maybe, maybe not. The speed boat has to stop for gas, and there aren't many stops in the open ocean. To use another analogy: the tortoise and the hare.

This, of course, insinuates the "time" factor discussed earlier. But I'm not sure time is such a severely limiting factor. Sure, if you're off course, you have to make course corrections, and that takes time. But with our current understanding of the piano, it won't take decades to correct (if ever). We can say, with certainty, exactly what needs to be done to right the ship. So, a dedicated practitioner should be able to steer the boat in a different direction.

However, in terms of time, it will take someone on the wrong course much longer to reach the goal than someone who starts on the right course. So, if this is what is meant by "talent"--the ability to start and/or continue on the "right" course--then I would have to concede its existence. I didn't get that sense from the vast majority of responses, but Old Man's contributions have significantly changed my point of view (or at least my understanding of the arguments).

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

When children go through the education system, they learn compounded information over time. Addition and subtraction lead to multiplication and division. Fractions. Decimals. Eventually algebra, trig, calculus, etc. When these children start on day one, they understand they will be given a grade A-F, and as long as they get a D, which is usually 65 and above, they can pass and move on to the next grade.

Unfortunately, what I see happening is this: a kid earns a B in 1st grade math, meaning he/she understands approximately 85% of the material. Then, they move on to 5th grade and get a C, or 75%. Then, they get to algebra, and because their foundation is rocky on only 75% understanding of previous material, they get a D, or 68%. Still good enough to pass, but they now understand only about 2/3 of the material. They move on to high school and take geometry or trig, and there they fail. Everyone looks at this kid and says, "Well, they weren't good at math."

That's not at all the way I remember what happened when I was in school. I remember that there tended to be strata of students, which were more or less aligned with the grading system. For example, I don't remember much of a drop-off among the kids who were B students initially - most of the time they remained pretty much B students throughout school. Sure, there would be occasional exceptions, but on average, kids stayed within their general performance level throughout school.

But of course, the kids who were not doing well in math usually wouldn't take the more advanced math electives, either. In the primitive school system I attended, there were only a few more advanced electives in science and math available, anyway, and the kids who weren't making good grades in general never took them.

I think the problem, Derulux, is that those who have a gift, whether in science, math, or music, have no idea they have a gift. It comes as naturally to them as walking, talking, or even breathing, so they don't see themselves as special, and figure it's all because they "worked so hard" at it. By your own admission you excelled at math and science without breaking a sweat.

That depends somewhat on the size of the community a gifted person might find themselves in. I know from experience that when it is small enough, you can stand out like a sore thumb.

I learned how to read music from a sibling when I was five years old, and it didn't seem like anything special. That is, it didn't until I freaked out my teacher at my second piano lesson. She had assigned the first little piece in the book during our first lesson a week earlier, and I played it fine. Then she said to I should learn the next piece for the next week's lesson. I said that I could already play it. She seemed dubious, so I showed her. Then I told her I could play through the whole book, and did so. And in my little 5-year-old kid way, I realized from her reaction that I had done something weird she had never seen before.

And that pretty much set the tone - in that small rural community, I was the freaky kid who played the piano too well. When it turned out that I also never needed to study in order to get straight A's, I was well and truly identified as being some totally strange person in that community. And I knew it (but didn't really understand it).

But you are right about the basic idea - the actual abilities aren't experienced as unusual to the person who has them. It's really only some kind of social context that can bring that awareness out.

For some, it's really hard to get the drift. I know of one middle-aged guy who only figured out why his outlook on everything was not in synch with "normal people" after he joined Mensa and discovered that there were other very smart people in the same boat (which, BTW, goes to show that being smart and being intelligent aren't the same thing).

Quote:

At least now I think I better understand why you struggle with this concept of innate, natural born ability. Because of the relative ease with which you absorb math and science, you've wrongly attributed your facility to "hard work, ambition, etc.", and you're extrapolating that anyone could do the same.

Hey wr: I had exactly the same experience growing up. I have been able to sight read anything since I was five. Don't know how, just could. When I went to university, we had to take 'sight-reading' and 'sight-singing'. The teacher brought in students, who could not sight-read well, to watch me and another student who was as good as I was, sight-read music, as if that would help improve the other students sight-reading skills!

In return for my 'gift' of sight-reading, I find it extremely hard to memorize. I have to work for many months just to memorize a short, simple work. It would appear that I have no 'gift' for memorizing.

When children go through the education system, they learn compounded information over time. Addition and subtraction lead to multiplication and division. Fractions. Decimals. Eventually algebra, trig, calculus, etc. When these children start on day one, they understand they will be given a grade A-F, and as long as they get a D, which is usually 65 and above, they can pass and move on to the next grade.

Unfortunately, what I see happening is this: a kid earns a B in 1st grade math, meaning he/she understands approximately 85% of the material. Then, they move on to 5th grade and get a C, or 75%. Then, they get to algebra, and because their foundation is rocky on only 75% understanding of previous material, they get a D, or 68%. Still good enough to pass, but they now understand only about 2/3 of the material. They move on to high school and take geometry or trig, and there they fail. Everyone looks at this kid and says, "Well, they weren't good at math."

That's not at all the way I remember what happened when I was in school. I remember that there tended to be strata of students, which were more or less aligned with the grading system. For example, I don't remember much of a drop-off among the kids who were B students initially - most of the time they remained pretty much B students throughout school. Sure, there would be occasional exceptions, but on average, kids stayed within their general performance level throughout school.

My memory is the same as wr's.

First of all, children entering 1st grade are excited about going to school, and are overeager to please. They're not thinking about the grading system at all. They're searching for every opportunity to please their teacher and their parents by getting the best grades they can, and all the gold and silver stars (or yes, smiley faces) that come with it. The idea that kids in 1st or 2nd grade are trying to game the system by "just getting a passing grade" is patently ridiculous. (That comes later, in junior high. )

But as much as most young kids go out of their way to please, and to do their best, this may not be good enough. As wr says, the various natural gifts (i.e. talents) of a classroom of students will "more or less be aligned with the grading system." I don't think your "cumulative error" theory really has any relevance. I'm not saying it could never happen, but in general, kids who excelled in certain subjects in their early years will continue to do so throughout their education. And those who struggled will continue to struggle.

Derulux, you seem to yearn for some sort of "equality of potential" which simply doesn't exist. You'll have to shake your fist at Mother Nature, because there's no one else to blame. We are not all born with equal abilities, and to insist that we are is to ignore reality. And more important, it sets the bar so high for kids of lesser ability that they are doomed to repeated failure throughout their lives. Society's goal should not be to send every kid to college but to educate and/or train them to maximize the abilities they have, so they can be productive and self-sufficient.

Personally I think we have way too many colleges in this country. I would reduce the number to about 20-25% of the current total. Is that elitist? Damn straight. College should be an "elite" institution, so insisting that everyone must attend college will only ensure that American education continues its downward trajectory into mediocrity. Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest.

Hey wr: I had exactly the same experience growing up. I have been able to sight read anything since I was five. Don't know how, just could. When I went to university, we had to take 'sight-reading' and 'sight-singing'. The teacher brought in students, who could not sight-read well, to watch me and another student who was as good as I was, sight-read music, as if that would help improve the other students sight-reading skills!

In return for my 'gift' of sight-reading, I find it extremely hard to memorize. I have to work for many months just to memorize a short, simple work. It would appear that I have no 'gift' for memorizing.

About the memorizing - me, too. Interesting how that works.

But part of the problem for me was that nobody ever taught me HOW to memorize, and it was only late in life that I found out there were actual techniques for it that people used. And by then, I didn't need to do it, so I haven't really spent much time on it.

But I had trouble memorizing other things, too, like poems, or lines in a play. On the other hand, I could retain all sorts of other information, and in some areas got a reputation as a person who remembered all sorts of arcane data. It is pretty strange, the memory thing.

Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest.

Good evening. I'd just like to point out that Germany's education policy has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory about the distribution of talent or abilities among individuals. It is derived from a view of the realities and the necessities of society, and that is all.

Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest.

Good evening. I'd just like to point out that Germany's education policy has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory about the distribution of talent or abilities among individuals. It is derived from a view of the realities and the necessities of society, and that is all.

???????

I thought that's what I was talking about -- the "realities and necessities of society". One of those "realities" is that we're not all the same. I don't understand your statement.

Andorra, I don't understand your statement either. My understanding of the German education system was similar to this Wikipedia entry(for what it's worth):

"Tracking (education)

Tracking is separating pupils by academic ability into groups for all subjects or certain classes and curriculum within a school. . . Germany uses a strongly tracked system. In Germany, students' achievements in their last of generally four years of primary school determine the type of secondary school they will be permitted to attend, and therefore the type of education they will receive."

Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest.

Good evening. I'd just like to point out that Germany's education policy has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory about the distribution of talent or abilities among individuals. It is derived from a view of the realities and the necessities of society, and that is all.

???????

I thought that's what I was talking about -- the "realities and necessities of society". One of those "realities" is that we're not all the same. I don't understand your statement.

I think you're thinking of "front end" necessities, where he may be mentioning "back end" necessities. Inputs vs outputs. (Of course, I could be wrong -- not very familiar with Germany's education system. It just sounded that way to me.)

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest.

Good evening. I'd just like to point out that Germany's education policy has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory about the distribution of talent or abilities among individuals. It is derived from a view of the realities and the necessities of society, and that is all.

???????

I thought that's what I was talking about -- the "realities and necessities of society". One of those "realities" is that we're not all the same. I don't understand your statement.

Good evening.

Quite exactly, whether we are all the same (or not) has nothing to do with the structure of education in Germany (or anywhere else, I think). I don't think that whether we are all the same or not has anything to do with "no child left behind" policy in the USA. I don't see why you bring these things into the discussion because they have nothing to do with questions of different talents or inborn abilities.

Quite exactly, whether we are all the same (or not) has nothing to do with the structure of education in Germany (or anywhere else, I think). I don't think that whether we are all the same or not has anything to do with "no child left behind" policy in the USA. I don't see why you bring these things into the discussion because they have nothing to do with questions of different talents or inborn abilities.

Good evening.

I think "these things" have quite a bit to do with questions of "different talents or inborn abilities". It's called "options". And I happen to believe that the US, unlike Germany, has done a miserable job of providing a variety of educational options and pathways. I couldn't care less about the motivation behind Germany's policies. The important thing is that a structure is in place that values all of its citizens, and allows each person to progress in a way that suits his or her abilities and desires.

As far as NCLB goes, I actually do suspect the motivations of policy makers here in America. Because it's based on the fallacious notion that "every child can succeed" if only teachers would teach better. No one believes in teacher accountability more than I do, but teachers cannot control the raw material that is presented to them. And the mantra that every kid must attend college is even more ludicrous. Yet that is the message that every child receives: Go to college, or you will be deemed worthless. And if you can't read, or add and subtract, or speak English by the time you arrive at college? No problem. We will "remediate" you (or inflate your grades). How enlightened!

I am not resurrecting the thread to introduce new arguments, but to supply an article I just read that, ironically enough, was published on the 13th and addresses many of the topics we've discussed over the last few weeks.

The article discusses genetically identical mice, and how a combination of the mice's choices through life, their environment, and the universe's "accidents" created and shaped the abilities of each mouse, and how choice, in particular, was far more significant than genetic makeup. A very interesting read for anyone, well, interested..

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 21717
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: Derulux

The article discusses genetically identical mice, and how a combination of the mice's choices through life, their environment, and the universe's "accidents" created and shaped the abilities of each mouse, and how choice, in particular, was far more significant than genetic makeup. A very interesting read for anyone, well, interested..

If one is comparing mice that are genetically the same, then it seems obvious that environment and choices would be far more significant.

This also seems to have little to do with any debate about how important genes are where two mice(or people) are genetically unequal. To do a study relevant to the discussion on this thread I think the researchers would have to make environment and choices the same and compare the results of mice with different genetic capabilities.

I see what you mean. This shows the limits of a "No mouse left behind" policy!

And the NCLB policy is equally limited.

And just as I was about to say that it's too bad we can't test for the innate musical ability of mice . . .

I remembered a Bob and Ray routine. Ray plays a general who enters his 88 mice in a military base talent show, and assigns each mouse to a key on the piano. And once he has them all lined up, he directs them in this honky tonk piano piece that's absolutely hysterical. IMHO, the funniest 2 men to ever grace the planet. They were one of the few acts that would reduce Johnny Carson to tears every time.

The article discusses genetically identical mice, and how a combination of the mice's choices through life, their environment, and the universe's "accidents" created and shaped the abilities of each mouse, and how choice, in particular, was far more significant than genetic makeup.

Good evening. It is evident that the authors of the study were inspired by your posts!

My God, if only I had that much influence!

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

If one is comparing mice that are genetically the same, then it seems obvious that environment and choices would be far more significant.

This also seems to have little to do with any debate about how important genes are where two mice(or people) are genetically unequal. To do a study relevant to the discussion on this thread I think the researchers would have to make environment and choices the same and compare the results of mice with different genetic capabilities.

I think the discussion of genetically identical individuals is entirely relevant. In fact, we even discussed the idea of performing very similar studies on humans.

That said, I have been persuaded that genetic differences may represent a significant limiting factor. I do believe that I, at least, tried to address the idea of a "handicap" or a "disability" by ruling it out of the discussion; but I'm not sure that idea took in everyone's minds and arguments. Be that as it may, I wasn't really trying to rekindle anything .. just sharing a very interesting read.

Originally Posted By: Damon

Can one of them play the piano?

Man, if they can, I want exclusive rights..

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

Another relevant article has been posted in the thread "Do Musicians Have Different Brains?"

But I'll admit I haven't read this whole thread--maybe that stuff has been discussed here already.

From that article:

'This expertise in fine finger controlhas a correlate in the brain. A morphometricstudy revealed that the intrasculcal length of the precentralgyrus (ILPG), a marker for the cortical motorhand area, is longer in keyboard players relative tonon-musician controls. Although it is possible topropose that individuals born with a longer ILPGwill have greater aptitude for playing the keyboardcompared with those with a shorter ILPG; the associationbetween ILPG and the age at which trainingcommenced suggests that anatomical differences inmotor cortex are the result, not the cause of learning.'

These children are quickly recognized, because you simply have to give them a piano, and a little guidance, and they take off like rockets.

To be quickly recognized, there has to be someone who knows enough to recognize them. They also have to have a piano, or there is nothing to recognize. If these children were to be brought to a piano, and on the very day that they encounter a piano for the first time, someone was at hand to recognize them, would they be able to do anything recognizeable? That piano has to be there for them. And the "little guidance" needs to be proper guidance, and not nonsense.

Of course each person is born with a set of innate abilities or potential, and is wired toward this or that --- the world of sound, the world of the visual, the world of scientific exploration. But opportunity must be present too. And the right guidance, for long enough.

In regards to the OP, wherever you are now, whatever you can and cannot do, that has to be dealt with by someone who knows what he's doing combined with your effort. I assume that what you want to do is to learn to play the piano very well, and are calling that "virtuoso technique".

(I've been reading this thread from the beginning after starting at the end, to get a handle on it, and got stuck on the present post in regards to which to respond to.)

Of course each person is born with a set of innate abilities or potential, and is wired toward this or that --- the world of sound, the world of the visual, the world of scientific exploration.

Good morning. I'd just like to point out that it is exactly this "of course" that has been the subject of disagreement in this thread. That each individual is born "wired" toward this or that, visual or sound or science, is an idea that is erroneous, "of course "

Of course each person is born with a set of innate abilities or potential, and is wired toward this or that --- the world of sound, the world of the visual, the world of scientific exploration.

Good morning. I'd just like to point out that it is exactly this "of course" that has been the subject of disagreement in this thread. That each individual is born "wired" toward this or that, visual or sound or science, is an idea that is erroneous, "of course

You have quoted a portion of what I wrote, and that distorts the message. I do know what was discussed, since I responded to it. (I mentioned about reading through the whole thread.) To understand what I'm saying (then you can respond to what I'm saying), please read the entire post. Thx.

I am not resurrecting the thread to introduce new arguments, but to supply an article I just read that, ironically enough, was published on the 13th and addresses many of the topics we've discussed over the last few weeks.

The article discusses genetically identical mice, and how a combination of the mice's choices through life, their environment, and the universe's "accidents" created and shaped the abilities of each mouse, and how choice, in particular, was far more significant than genetic makeup. A very interesting read for anyone, well, interested..

That blog entry (it's not an article) doesn't focus on "choice", but on "chance". To me, that's a pretty big difference.

It seems to me that what is being discussed is a sort of "butterfly effect". In other words, very tiny variations in the mouse's environment early on, perhaps ones due to chance, can eventually have quite significant results, regardless of genetic material. It could be really just be pointing to certain kinds of environmental variables that simply have been downplayed or overlooked previously.